gtkextra3: new port

[Tom.Schoonjans@…]

Please consider the submission of gtkextra3, a library with additional widgets for Gtk2

This is a resubmission of #39255, which somehow got stuck quite some time ago.

Thanks in advance,

Tom

[Tom.Schoonjans@…]

…and this one got stuck too… guys? anyone?

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Please do not file duplicate tickets. That will only confuse things and slow everything down. The proper way to get our attention is to send an email to the ​Macports Developers mailing list instead.

[Tom.Schoonjans@…]

Hey,

I tried sending an email but it got rejected by the list-owner…

Best,

Tom

[larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)]

Did you subscribe first?

[Tom.Schoonjans@…]

Ok, done…

Seemed like a bit of overkill to sign up just for sending one email :-)

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

Id line is missing.

What really strikes me odd is the name. Why do you call it gtkextras3? Is there gtkextras2? Can both be installed at the same time?

If not, the digit is superfluous.

Even worse, it gives the impression this port would somehow be related to gtk3, which it is not.

There's no livecheck (optional, but nice to have.)

I'd suggest changing pre-configure to pre-fetch to avoid fetching sources if the (variants) configuration is broken, but I'm unaware of an official policy regarding this.

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

Replying to ionic@…:

Id line is missing.

What really strikes me odd is the name. Why do you call it gtkextras3? Is there gtkextras2?

Uhm, yes, there's gtk2-extras.

Can both be installed at the same time?

If not, the digit is superfluous.

To be precise, the whole new port would be superfluous and gtk2-extras better be updated.

Even worse, it gives the impression this port would somehow be related to gtk3, which it is not.

There's no livecheck (optional, but nice to have.)

I'd suggest changing pre-configure to pre-fetch to avoid fetching sources if the (variants) configuration is broken, but I'm unaware of an official policy regarding this.

[Tom.Schoonjans@…]

I attached a new Portfile which contains the missing # $Id$ line, and has pre-configure changed to pre-fetch.

I didn't put in the live check since I am not entirely sure what the expression should be. Feel free to add it though.

I would like to emphasize that gtkextra3 is not replacing gtk2-extras since gtkextra3 contains several non backwards-compatible changes to the API. Ports that are currently linked against gtk2-extras should remain so, although developers of such ports should be encouraged to switch to gtkextra3. The gtk2-extras branch in the source code is no longer being maintained.

I do understand that the '3' may be confusing, but this was a choice made by the developers (before I joined the project…). Nothing we can do about that...

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

Replying to Tom.Schoonjans@…:

I attached a new Portfile which contains the missing # $Id$ line, and has pre-configure changed to pre-fetch.

Thanks.

I didn't put in the live check since I am not entirely sure what the expression should be. Feel free to add it though.

OK. Will see what I can come up with.

I would like to emphasize that gtkextra3 is not replacing gtk2-extras since gtkextra3 contains several non backwards-compatible changes to the API. Ports that are currently linked against gtk2-extras should remain so, although developers of such ports should be encouraged to switch to gtkextra3.

There are one or two ports using gtk2-extra. That's not exactly a whole bunch. Worse, both have not been updated for over a year, one of them only more than two years ago (and even then using gtk2-extra only when explicitly enabled via a variant.)

The gtk2-extras branch in the source code is no longer being maintained.

This is a very good argument for replacing gtk2-extras with your new port and what I was aiming at in my last comment(s). Do we really need to carry legacy cruft? Can't php-gtk and gpsim be updated to make use of gtkextra3?

I do understand that the '3' may be confusing, but this was a choice made by the developers (before I joined the project…). Nothing we can do about that...

The 3 is just a version number. We could very much drop this, if we wanted (assuming that we will only have one version/branch of GtkExtras in the repository.)

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

One other thing: as far as I could find out, it doesn't support GTK 3, right? Or does it?

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

I've made some changes to the portfile, namely (so far)

• change name to gtk2-extra3
• whitespace changes (remove trailing whitespace, convert tabs to spaces to maintain consistency)
• set branch variable (extracted from version)
• set upstream name as sf_name variable
• add livecheck

​https://git.ionic.de/macports-overlay.git/history/a607e6ce:/gnome/gtk2-extra3/Portfile

Comments?

[Tom.Schoonjans@…]

Thanks for looking into this

Couple of comments:

1) yes there is indeed no support for Gtk3 currently, but that is being worked on. When this is done, the new version will probably be called gtkextra-4. We plan on maintaining both gtkextra-3 and gtkextra-4 branches in the future, at least as long as Gtk2 is officially supported.

2) I agree that the best solution would be to just drop gtk2-extras and replace it by gtkextra (with or without the -3 suffix, which would be relevant as soon as gtkextra-4 is released)

3) I will check if php-gtk and gpsim would build against gtkextra-3 and will try to produce patches if necessary. Php-gtk appears to be dead by the way

4) I am not a big fan of gtk2-extra3 name: I understand the rationale behind it but I think it just differs too much from the official name. I would like to suggest gtkextra or gtkextra3

Best,

Tom

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

Replying to Tom.Schoonjans@…:

1) yes there is indeed no support for Gtk3 currently, but that is being worked on. When this is done, the new version will probably be called gtkextra-4. We plan on maintaining both gtkextra-3 and gtkextra-4 branches in the future, at least as long as Gtk2 is officially supported.

OK, so we don't need subports for gtk2 and gtk3 for now, then. If, in the future, gtkextra-4 is supposed to support both GTK2 and GTK3, the situation may change.

3) I will check if php-gtk and gpsim would build against gtkextra-3 and will try to produce patches if necessary. Php-gtk appears to be dead by the way

Yeah, PHP-GTK (the port) hasn't been updated in years. Not surprised.

4) I am not a big fan of gtk2-extra3 name: I understand the rationale behind it but I think it just differs too much from the official name. I would like to suggest gtkextra or gtkextra3

It seems like we're not really consistent in naming gtk{,2,3}-foo ports based on the "correct" toolkit, anyway, so gtkextra3 may just do it. I just tried to clear up that mess you're in for putting 3 into a GTK2-based library name.

Just one more thing. I'd suggest moving the group back to x11 devel instead of gnome devel, because this port has really nothing to do with GNOME per se, short of using the same drawing library. From what I've seen it's desktop-evironment-agnostic and can be used just as nicely for applications "supposed" to be used with XFCE. You'll hopefully get the idea.

[Tom.Schoonjans@…]

Replying to ionic@…:

Replying to Tom.Schoonjans@…:

1) yes there is indeed no support for Gtk3 currently, but that is being worked on. When this is done, the new version will probably be called gtkextra-4. We plan on maintaining both gtkextra-3 and gtkextra-4 branches in the future, at least as long as Gtk2 is officially supported.

OK, so we don't need subports for gtk2 and gtk3 for now, then. If, in the future, gtkextra-4 is supposed to support both GTK2 and GTK3, the situation may change.

The developers plan to have Gtkextra-3 supporting Gtk2 and Gtkextra-4 supporting Gtk3 (exclusively).

3) I will check if php-gtk and gpsim would build against gtkextra-3 and will try to produce patches if necessary. Php-gtk appears to be dead by the way

Yeah, PHP-GTK (the port) hasn't been updated in years. Not surprised.

After making a small modification to the configure.ac script of gpsim I managed to get it building against Gtkextra-3, but this solution unfortunately didn't work out for php-gtk. Fixing the build errors seems like a major task and should be taken care of by the php-gtk developers.

4) I am not a big fan of gtk2-extra3 name: I understand the rationale behind it but I think it just differs too much from the official name. I would like to suggest gtkextra or gtkextra3

It seems like we're not really consistent in naming gtk{,2,3}-foo ports based on the "correct" toolkit, anyway, so gtkextra3 may just do it. I just tried to clear up that mess you're in for putting 3 into a GTK2-based library name.

I agree that naming the package Gtkextra-3 may not have been the smartest move… this happened before I joined the development though :-)

Just one more thing. I'd suggest moving the group back to x11 devel instead of gnome devel, because this port has really nothing to do with GNOME per se, short of using the same drawing library. From what I've seen it's desktop-evironment-agnostic and can be used just as nicely for applications "supposed" to be used with XFCE. You'll hopefully get the idea.

I agree

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

I've changed the name back to gtkextra3 and the categories to x11 devel:

​https://git.ionic.de/macports-overlay.git/blob_plain/d339d31f5a5ebfc:/x11/gtkextra3/Portfile

If you're OK with the Portfile, I'd commit it like that, after test-building it on my system (which may take a while due to other updates.)

[Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)]

r131263.